DISCUSSION: The main point must cover the entire passage: Opposing viewpoint, objection #1, objection #2.
- This only describes the opposing viewpoint.
- What contradictory viewpoints? The evidence from studies on agriculture in the second paragraph was all bad. And this ignores the first and third paragraphs.
- CORRECT. The second and third paragraphs strongly weaken the arguments made in the first paragraph. There are no benefits for agriculture, and increased tundra leakage will make up for the CO2 absorbed by plant growth.
- This is true, but what does it tell us? It doesn’t say whether the opinion presented in the first paragraph is still correct, or not.
- This doesn’t say anything about agriculture. Also, we’re not told whether global warming will increase. We only know that CO2 absorbed from plant growth can’t compensate for the CO2 released by the tundra (lines 54-56).
But there might be some other factor that slows the warming rate; CO2 isn’t the only variable.
Need help with RC? → Try the RC Mastery Seminar
Solve hard passages quickly